[16.0][ADD] add rma_lot

[sbejaoui]

fixes: #416

[OCA-git-bot]

Hi @chienandalu, @pedrobaeza,
some modules you are maintaining are being modified, check this out!

[peluko00]

Hi @pedrobaeza, can you please review that. I'm really interested in migrate this module to v17 because i need and it's probably very important for this repo

[pedrobaeza]

Perform a full review and wait for the changes of the author.

[peluko00]

The function not compute the product when the lot is selected and the field product must be readonly.

[peluko00]

Maybe @sbejaoui it's better to separate the two new modules in two prs

[sbejaoui]

The function not compute the product when the lot is selected and the field product must be readonly.

I added the onchange functions so that the product and lot update when one or the other changes. I don't agree with making the product field readonly

[peluko00]

The function not compute the product when the lot is selected and the field product must be readonly.

I added the onchange functions so that the product and lot update when one or the other changes. I don't agree with making the product field readonly

Thanks but if you choose an lot_id it's link to product and doesn't associate to another. If lot_id it's not filled it's normal to choose product

[peluko00]

Maybe @sbejaoui it's better to separate the two new modules in two prs

What is your opinion in that case @rousseldenis?

[rousseldenis]

Maybe @sbejaoui it's better to separate the two new modules in two prs

What is your opinion in that case @rousseldenis?

As both modules are new, I would say it's not really annoying. The problem with that is when changes in one module are accepted and not in the other. That couples the PR lifetime to the slowest.

@sbejaoui Could you do a PR for rma search view modification as the module version won't be updated when we will merge this (@peluko00 this is the more annoying case)

[peluko00]

Maybe @sbejaoui it's better to separate the two new modules in two prs

What is your opinion in that case @rousseldenis?

As both modules are new, I would say it's not really annoying. The problem with that is when changes in one module are accepted and not in the other. That couples the PR lifetime to the slowest.

@sbejaoui Could you do a PR for rma search view modification as the module version won't be updated when we will merge this (@peluko00 this is the more annoying case)

And related to the two new modules?

[sbejaoui]

Maybe @sbejaoui it's better to separate the two new modules in two prs

What is your opinion in that case @rousseldenis?

As both modules are new, I would say it's not really annoying. The problem with that is when changes in one module are accepted and not in the other. That couples the PR lifetime to the slowest.

@sbejaoui Could you do a PR for rma search view modification as the module version won't be updated when we will merge this (@peluko00 this is the more annoying case)

#430

[peluko00]

LGTM, tested in runboat

[peluko00]

Seems it's ready to merge @rousseldenis

[OCA-git-bot]

This PR has the approved label and has been created more than 5 days ago. It should therefore be ready to merge by a maintainer (or a PSC member if the concerned addon has no declared maintainer). 🤖

[mpascuall]

LGTM, tested in runboat and working as expected

[rousseldenis]

/ocabot merge nobump

[OCA-git-bot]

This PR looks fantastic, let's merge it!
Prepared branch 16.0-ocabot-merge-pr-419-by-rousseldenis-bump-nobump, awaiting test results.

[OCA-git-bot]

Congratulations, your PR was merged at 68d6a10. Thanks a lot for contributing to OCA. ❤️